Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1147 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Set Aside Where IRCC Decided the Application on an Incomplete Record

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Harpreet Kaur’s permanent residence application under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class. IRCC requested extensive additional evidence concerning her marriage and cohabitation and later refused the application for failing to submit all requested documents. The Court granted judicial review because several documents properly submitted by the applicant were missing from the Certified Tribunal Record and had apparently not been considered by the officer.

Key Principle

An immigration decision breaches procedural fairness where it is made on an incomplete record through no fault of the applicant. When documents are shown to have been properly submitted but are absent from the tribunal record, and it is unclear whether the decision-maker considered them, the decision should ordinarily be set aside. A reviewing court cannot speculate that the missing documents would not have affected the result, because the right to be heard requires the officer to consider the complete materials submitted by the applicant.

Background

IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter stating that the applicant’s previous relationship and cohabitation evidence was insufficient. She was given seven days to provide a lengthy list of documents, including tax records, leases, utility bills, banking evidence, photographs, communications, affidavits, and an explanation of the relationship.

On March 21, 2024, the applicant emailed 19 PDF attachments and asked IRCC to confirm receipt. IRCC responded that not all requested documents had been provided but did not clearly identify what was missing.

The applicant explained that she was unrepresented and repeatedly asked whether all attachments had been received. IRCC extended the deadline to March 24, 2024.

At 9:57 p.m. on March 24, the applicant sent another email containing 19 additional PDF documents. The following day, IRCC refused the application, stating that she had not submitted the requested documents in the proper manner.

Court Findings

• Certified Tribunal Record Was Incomplete
The Court found that the Certified Tribunal Record did not contain the applicant’s March 24 email or its 19 attachments, and it also omitted several documents from her earlier submission. This raised a serious concern that the officer had decided the application without considering all of the evidence that had been properly submitted.

• Missing Materials Were Properly Submitted
The evidence demonstrated that the applicant had submitted the missing documents before the deadline and repeatedly sought confirmation that IRCC had received them. Their absence from the record was not attributable to any failure on the applicant’s part.

• Missing Explanation Was Potentially Material
One of the omitted documents explained why certain requested documents, including a lease agreement, were unavailable and addressed other concerns raised in the procedural fairness letter. The Court held that these explanations could have influenced the officer’s assessment and therefore should have been considered.

• Court Could Not Predict the Officer’s Decision
Although some requested documents may still have been missing, the Court refused to speculate that the outcome would necessarily have been the same if the officer had reviewed the complete record. It was for the officer, not the Court, to assess the significance of the omitted evidence.

• Right to Be Heard Was Compromised
The Court held that deciding the application without considering all properly submitted materials violated the applicant’s right to be heard, which is a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness. This procedural defect required the decision to be set aside and reconsidered by a different officer.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for redetermination. All documents attached to the March 21 and March 24 emails were deemed part of the record for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1147 (CanLII)